How Many Elections Will Democrats Steal Tomorrow, Part 4 [With Comment By John]

Britain’s Daily Mail has a nice piece out today summarizing the guerrilla journalism of James O’Keefe on the question of vote fraud. (Why is it, by the way, that when CBS or NBC does hidden camera investigation, it is considered great journalism, but when O’Keefe does it, it is called “intimidation”? For that matter, why do we have to look to the British press for serious treatment of potential voter fraud? Never mind, we all know the answer to that question. . .)

Anyway:

North Carolina election officials repeatedly offered ballots last week to an impostor who arrived at polling places with the names and addresses of ‘inactive’ voters who hadn’t participated in elections for many years.

No fraudulent votes were actually cast: It was the latest undercover video sting from conservative activist James O’Keefe, whose filmmaking résumé reads like a target list of liberal causes.

He famously shuttered ACORN, the community organizing outfit once linked to Barack Obama. He dressed in an Osama bin Laden costume and waded across the Rio Grande from Mexico to America as a show of disdain for U.S. border policy. He videotaped people admitting they sold taxpayer-provided cellphones for drugs, shoes, handbags and spending cash.

Now O’Keefe has strolled into more than 20 voting precincts in Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro, N.C., proffering the names of people who seldom vote in order to test the integrity of the election process. It seems to have failed on a massive scale.

‘I just sign this and then I can vote?’ he asked one poll worker. ‘Yep,’ came the reply.

North Carolina may be especially vulnerable to vote fraud as it doesn’t have a state-level ID requirement at present. Do check out the whole piece, which has several of O’Keefe’s videos embedded.

Incidentally, I always find it interesting to see how liberals react when you point out that the U.S. is the only advanced democracy where an ID isn’t mandatory for voting. Are all those European social democracies that require IDs racist or something?

Or how about this guy, who advocated having voter IDs required for his counry:

JOHN adds: For convenience, here is the Project Veritas North Carolina video. One highlight is when a campaign worker tells O’Keefe that he looks just like a guy named James O’Keefe who goes around taking videos:

Early in the video, you see these signs in front of a polling place:

One wonders: what possible reason can there be for advertising the fact that identification is not required, other than to encourage fraud?

At one point, O’Keefe says that there are more than 700,000 people on North Carolina’s voter rolls who are identified as “inactive.” Presumably this means they have died, moved out of state, or just stopped voting. Since anyone can see who they are, it is easy to pick out an “inactive” voter and claim to be him or her. There is effectively no constraint on voter fraud, apart from the fact that it takes a certain amount of trouble to cast a single fraudulent vote. It is easier if the Democrats can just run a stack of ballots through a voting machine, as in Philadelphia. Also, it is hard for the Democrats to organize a major effort at double-voting (once for yourself and once for an inactive voter), while preserving secrecy. So the margin of fraud is probably slender. Still, in a year like this one, with many races likely to be on a razor’s edge, that slender margin may be enough.